Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
asked my teenage daughter what is going on with russia? it is a soviet union. what is that? it was of big things back then before toppled most of us had never considered iraq of saddam hussein but winning was a foregone conclusion and terrorism took us by subplot -- surprise. we thought they were rabble rouser is. the bin laden construction company how is that for irony? >> but after that things change with the world trade center bombing and september september 11th i was flying that morning. coming in from another rotation and september 10th was our first day back. essentially flying and i had come down nearly and somebody said you have to look at this. i thought what moron of the pilot could hit the tower of that size on a clear day? i thought it was an accident. then the second plane hit they sent us up to close down the airspace of the united states. that is eerie as the pilot. "o.o.p.s." is the name of the book. stephen frantzich is a professor at the u.s. naval academy and is the author. what does that stand for? >> of serving our politicians stumble. i said i need to
because we cannot supply them with natural gas. instead of russia. in this environment subsidizing wind and solar makes no sense. refi china and india and other emerging economies would sign nine so to reduce emissions i don't take a position nine whether man-made emissions cause global warming and i it china and india to make up 37% of the population not doing so. and the first chapter the book i talk about geo engineering solutions win to think we could reduce global temperatures by just came roofs white to reflect the race. what we're doing with a 12 billion-dollar hours it is pushing people into cars they do not want to buy raising your much as a cost we are getting rid of incandescent light bulbs and disproportionately those zero least able to afford it the lowest fifth of and come distribution spend 24 percent of income on electricity natural-gas and gasoline. that's right. spending on energy and compared to an average of 7%. it it is just strange well-intentioned people who purport to represent advocates policies that will do them harm rather than a good british edition to hurric
that russia is worried it stalled on the eastern european economy is going to fail because we can now supplied them with natural gas instead of russia being a bear sole supplier. subsidizing wind and solar makes no sense. also five years ago we fought that china and india and other emerging economies might sign on to emissions reductions. and therefore that if we reduce emissions perhaps global temperatures would be reduced. i don't take a position on whether man-made emissions cause global warming or not but if we are reducing our emissions and china and india which make up 37% of the world's population are not doing so we are not going to have any effect on global temperatures and in the first chapter of the book i talk about geo engineering solutions that no prize-winning scientist paul krugman things can reduce global temperatures if we do it on our own such as breaking clouds with salt water or painting room for white to reflect the sun's rays. what we are doing with the $12 billion we're spending on alternative energy is pushing people into cars they don't want to buy, where raising elec
cheap that chemical manufacturers are attracted back to america. it's so cheap that russia is worried his hold on the eastern european economy is going to fail because we cannot supply them at natural gas in southern russia at the initial supply. in this environment, subsidizing wind and solar makes no sense. also five years ago, we thought china and india and other emerging economies might sign on to emissions reduction and therefore if we reduced emissions, perhaps global temperatures would be reduced. i don't take a position on whether man-made emissions cause global warming are not, but if we are reducing emissions in china and india, which make up 37% of the worlds population are not doing so, we're not going to have any effect on global temperatures. in the first chapter of the book i talk about geoengineering solutions that nobel prize winning scientists paul crookston thinks could reduce global temperatures if we adjust honoring such as spurring water or painting rooms white to reflect the sun rays. what we are doing with the $12 billion they spent on alternative energy is pus
the supply delivery business to russia, they left the gulf, those small number of advisors in saudi arabia and in iran stuck around for decades, and it's that role that really represented america's influence that stemmed from world war ii, the pro longed war in the gulf. >> host: professor, i think of the british when i think of the involvement in the middle east. when and how did they step back their involvement? >> guest: well, with regard to the gulf, the brits arrived in the 1800s. and it represented their quest to provide order to a part of -- on the flanks to their imperial interests in india. the southern coast of the gulf had been called in the 1800s, the pirate coast, and the constantly feuding tribes fused with one another, which spill out into the sea-born approaches to india, and result in attacks on india, and possibly resulting weakness that might bring another great power. so the british found themselves pulled into the gulf in the 1800s. not to colonize as they did further to the east in india but, rather to maintain order there, and they did, with a relatively small amount
teenage daughter, she said, what's wrong with russia? i said it's not russia, the soviet union. she said once that? that it was a big thing back there in the late '80s and early 90s before it toppled. we were geared up to fight in the most of us had never really considered iraq on yahoo! saddam hussein was. and after that war was over, which when he was a foregone conclusion. the terrorism thing took us all by surprise but we just thought they were gravel rows, never give them too much credit. all the buildings at khobar towers were built by the bin laden construction company. they have the bin laden stands and all the -- how's that for irony? but after that things kind of change. the world trade center bombings and september 11, of course we all know what happened that day. i was actually flying that morning. we had come back from the middle east from another rotation. monday, september 10 was her first day back. and the morning of september 11 i was actually falling, and i've come down very, very early, and somebody said you've got to look at this. i've been everything as i looked at t
arab ya and the united states and russia and the european countries. what happened in lebanon -- if left to themselves, lebanon -- which is another sad story -- they might have been able to compromise and come together as they did on a number of occasion before re '7s and '80s, and work things out somehow. find some sort of system and muddle through this. but as they say in real estate, location is everything. and lebanon being between syria and israel, and of course syria itself being on the border of israel, lebanon, iraq, south of turkey, you're not going to be -- you cannot be the switzerland over the middle east. are going to have outside influences which usually exacerbate the situation and lengthen the time of the civil war. >> and so let's talk a little bit now, shifting the perspective, to the personal connections that you have to the house of assad. i would love for you to give us a good feel for, who is this man who is the president and how did he change over the time that you've known him? seems like there was a definitive time around 2005-2006 that you say he shif
, and he was the richest man in russia. kind of a bad way. and this is what he said to me about oligarchs and everybody else. if the man is not an oligarchic something is not right with him. everyone had the same starting conditions, everyone could have done it. and he really meant it. very heartfelt and not criticizing himself, he lost $100 million, he had stupidly entrusted a non oligarch. and this non oligarchic by definition not a smart guy, a few hundred million dollars. there is a little bit of that thinking a lot of these guys and it is interesting because very strong parallels, the parallel with the industrial revolution. there's a line from andrew carnegie which is very similar soak carnegie said the talent for organization is rare among men, approved by the fact that it is reward for its possessor. if a man is not an oligarch something is wrong with him. and services can be obtained as partner, the man whose service can be obtained as a partner for the first consideration such as render the question of his capital that we are considering. such men soon create capital and in the
in all of these great events and really influencing american policy toward russia and having to worry about that, and yet at the same time he was concerned about my welfare and whether or not i was learning anything. c-span: there was a moment in the book you describe where you went to his house, and you were supposed to go to see him -- i think he was up on the third floor, and you caught him watching "the dick van dyke show." what was so unusual about that? >> guest: that was such a fantastic memory for me because nixon always claimed that he never watched television, and of course he did. he liked to watch the news. he watched sporting events. he used to watch football and baseball quite avidly. but he never admitted to watching sort of mindless entertainment. so i was usually about five minutes late for our meetings at the residence in the afternoon, so he normally expected me to be late. and this one day in particular i was five minutes early, and i was walking up the stairs, and before i could clear the stairs to the third floor, i heard the television going. and then i heard ca
's wrong with russia? i said it's not russia, it's the soviet union. she said was that? but it's a big thing back in the late 80s and early 90s before it toppled. we were geared up to fight them and most of us have never considered iraq or knew who saddam hussein was. after that war was over, which when it was a foregone conclusion, the terrorists and they took us all by surprise. we thought they were rabble-rousers. never given too much credit. interestingly enough, all the buildings were built by the bin laden construction company and had the bin laden stamps and buildings. how's that for irony? after that, things kind of change. the world trade in their bombing and september 11, we all know what happened that day. i was flying up winning. we came back from the middle east from another rotation in the monday, september 10 was their first day back. the morning of september 11th is actually flying in it come down very, very early. somebody said hey come you got to look at this. remember the key not the first tower building, what morons could hit tower of that size on a clear day? i tho
will be global governance and others is the autocratic regime. i talk a little bit about russia and china as the autocratic regime in the book and i don't see them proportion those countries in the democratic not by force. we could do it or not do it as a policy decision and other radical islam to establish sharia as the constitutional structure so there are different types of political sense. but i'm saying is the philadelphia sovereignty. thank you for your presentation. the was excellent. contrasting subjects and submission that will further weaken the sovereignty or cause us to be submissive some wouldn't even know what you're talking about, 60, 70% probably but you get into the people in this room that probably do know what you're talking about and that get elected in two years and maybe this the department that might understand this is the use of your offer action or something i thought. i am doing that and i can talk about that a little bit. that is a good question. yes, there is a new work in washington and from some of the think tanks that started the sovereignty caucus and. ther
to russia to die. when the germans surrendered and the japanese were pushed back to their home islandislands, the american propensity to safety or human life while wasting cheap bullets and bombs reached with the dropping of the two atomic bombs. virtually all of the relevant evidence, recent evidence for both american and japanese sources validates president harry truman's decision to drop both bombs. japanese leaders did not display the slightest acknowledgment of the military realities, illustrated by the report of dr. machine off, japan's top atomic scientist who was sent to hiroshima the following day and had to report back to the emperor and he was asked was this an atomic bomb? then came the line, how long until we can make one? that is hardly the response of somebody looking for a way to surrender. truman intended to show japan that he would use any weapons at our disposal. there was no atomic diplomacy. he wanted to show the japanese that it was surrender or die. which surrender came to temporary victory in the principles of american exceptionalism worldwide. unlike all the previous
east, syria, north korea, china, and russia and so forth. i would imagine a considerably lower priority. eac n >> didew cuba policy wax and wae with each new administration? >> it did. the most fee roshes opposition was during the kennedy years. jack kennedy was really determined to cosomething about the cuba problem. he was obsessed. humiliated by castro at the bay of of pigs. was lyndon johnson came after kennedy, and his obsession was vietnam.pitously cuba. declined.r, subsequent presidents such as gerald ford, jimmy carter made serious efforts to acheech a, response with castro. quite the opposite what kennedy was doing.y comby has waxed and waned. it's been a different kind of priority over the fifty years e for ten or eleven american g presidents. >> onet theerer reverse side. it did they have good assets in the u.s.? has the castro regime tried to assassinate a u.s. president. >> i continue think that -- don't think that castro had a ai directns demand the assassinatin de plotri against the american t president. mo but i do describe in the book -- some of the most startling infor
, others is an autocratic regime. i talk a little bit about russia and china as autocratic regimes in the book, and i don't want see any problem with the -- i don't see any problem with the united states pushing those countries if they can, not by force. we could do it or not do it, that's a policy decision. and then, of course, there's radical islam which also is a type of -- would like to establish sharia as the constitutional structure in some countries. so there are different types of political systems, and i'm saying the philadelphia sovereignty is my preferred system. and also i think it's the best system. >> thank you for your presentation. i thought it was excellent. we see this stuff happening all the time, but you've captured it in very vivid, contrasting subjects, sovereignty or submission. and in the u.n. now there are other things being negotiated that would further weaken our sovereignty or cause us to be sub missive. so i'm wondering what your actions are. when i look at the country, some huge percentage wouldn't even know what you're talking about. then you get into
and russia back to the u.s. liquid nitrogen would freeze it. they have to be kept cool. this can be done. i think they use pcr to allergy and a lot of other fancy laboratory things to extract not by virus. you can extract by virus. you can't grow it. you can extract dna and rna to identify what was there. that's what nathan wolfe and his people are doing. the idea to spot the next one and a very, very early phase, decades passed before he realized that hiv was in the human population. va just trying catch the next big one much earlier than that. >> how did these deadly animal viruses tend to revolve? do you think they will continue to evolve at the rate they have done in the recent experience of monitoring and trying to control them? >> two things can happen. say you are a monkey living in central africa. they are tearing down your habitat. 1010 the monkey habitat. they're killing the monkey for food, building villages, settlements, timber can. so the horizon, the prospects of the particular virus are shrinking and shrinking and shrinking. at the point where the monkey approaches the brink
soldiers in vast numbers been sent to russia to die. when the germans surrendered in japanese are pushed back to their home islands, the american propensity to save dear human life are wasting cheap wallets and bombs reached at cnet with the dropping of the two atomic bombs. virtually all of the evidence -- recent evidence from american and japanese validates president kerry truman's decision to drop both bombs. japanese leaders did not display the slightest acknowledgment of military reality illustrated by the report of dr. machine. japan's top atomic scientist sent out to hear a shame that the following day and had to report back to the emperor and he was fast, was this an atomic bomb? then came the line, how long -- attended the response of some of the camp to surrender. truman intended to show japan that he would use any weapon at our disposal. there was no atomic diplomacy. he wanted to show the japanese study was surrender or die. when japan's surrender became the temporary picture of the principles of american exceptionalism worldwide. unlike all the previous empires commit the u.
. with the ottoman empire spain, russia flourishing between 20 and 50 years this is the space allotted for imperial much 70. we do decadence going from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves going from exploration to exploitation with the welfare state. and then at the declining nation it suggests it is no different than the family. both recapitulate tendencies and like the human evolves list direction that may live to be 120 years but no longer through predictable stages and the state however powerful. we see the signs are positive. but in all empire strikes could be materialism and and frivolity and the weakening of religion and a weakening of the world. as a search for survival he writes everyone can contribute to by working harder and only a revival of spiritual devotion can't inspire selfless service and each can contribute by leading moral and dedicated lives if we have no leaders we must go loan. we had the l.a. of the bridge and perhaps not quite the time to ask how can manned by better? it is evident the time for sacrifice with the judeo-christian values is near. with the notions of birth control se
into germany to sustain the war effort while german soldiers in vast numbers were being sent to russia to die. the germans surrendered in the japanese were pushed back to their home islands, and the american to save human lives while the statute votes and bombs reached its zenith with the dropping of the two atomic bombs. virtually all of the relevant evidence, recent evidence from american and japanese sources nowadays president harry truman's decision to drop those bombs. japanese leaders did not display the slightest acknowledgment of military reality illustrated by the report of dr. sheena. japan's top atomic scientist sent down to hear a shame of following day and had to report back to the emperor. he was asked, was this an atomic bomb? dan kim the line, how long until we can make money? is hardly the response of somebody looking for a way to surrender. truman intended to show japan that he would use any weapon at our disposal. there was no atomic diplomacy. he wanted to show the japanese it was surrender or die. became a temporary victory the principles of american exceptionalism worldw
in the marketplace of ideas. with state capitalism in russia, china and the persian gulf, with political islam in the middle east. with a left wing grant a democratic populism in latin america. and then out expect nation that every country would actually converge and ultimately want to look like us will not prove to be accurate. let me give you a sense as to why i think we are heading toward diversity rather than toward ideological convergence. in my mind, the rise of the west followed a unique political and social trajectory. we as americans find our roots in the year 1000, 1100, when europe began to fragment. when the three traditional institutions of authority, the monarchy, the ability -- nobility and the catholic church began to lose their strangled over society. blacksmiths, early bankers, early professionals began to push back against traditional society. and that middle-class grew in size and strength and became the vanguard of the revolution that became the west. about religious pluralism to the reformation, and then when you about political pluralism. because monarchs said to the ris
up to fight the soviet union. i asked my teenage daughter, what is wrong with russia? what is the soviet union? it was a big thing in the late 80s and >> host:s. we were geared up to fight them and most of us had never considered iraq or saddam hussein. after that war was over which winning was a foregone conclusion. the terrorism thing to pass all by surprise. we just thought they were rabble rouser is. never gave the much credit. interestingly all the buildings were built by the bin laden construction co. and had bin laden stamps. how's that for irony? but after that, things change, you had the world trade center bombings and then september 11th, we all know what happened that day. i was actually flying that morning, we come back from the middle east, from another rotation and monday, september 10th was our first day back and the morning of september 11th i was flying and i would come down very, very early and someone said look at this, and i remember thinking as i looked at the first tower, what kind of a more of a pilot could hit a tower that size on a clear day? i thou
the obvious higher priorities, iran, the middle east, syria, north korea, china, russia, and so forth. i would imagine considerably lower priority. >> did cuba policy wax and wean with each new administration? >> it did. it did. the most ferocious opposition was in the kennedy years. jack kennedy, as i said, was really determined to do something about the cuba problem. he was obsessed. hue millñhr -- huh mill -- humiliated by castro in the bay of pigs. kennedy's obsession was vietnam so cuba declined precipitously. presidents like ford, carter, made very serious efforts to achieve that with fidel castro, the opposite of what kennedy was doing, and so, yes, cuba maxed and waned. a different kind of priority over the 50 years for 10 or 11 american presidents. >> on the reverse side, does cuba have good assets? did cuba have good assets in the u.s.? has the castro regime tried to assassinate a u.s. president? >> i don't think castro ever had a direct hand in an assassination plot against an american president, but i describe in the book some of the most startling information i acquired from cuba
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)